Celeron M 560 vs Dual-Core T3000

Place in the ranking	2965	3078
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Series	Intel Celeron Dual-Core	Intel Celeron M
Power efficiency	1.16	1.07
Architecture codename	Penryn-1M (2009)	Merom (2006−2008)
Release date	1 May 2009 (15 years ago)	1 May 2008 (16 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Celeron M 560 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores	2 (Dual-core)	1 (Single-Core)
Threads	2	1
Boost clock speed	1.8 GHz	2.13 GHz
Bus rate	800 MHz	533 MHz
L1 cache	64 KB	64 KB
L2 cache	1 MB	1 MB
Chip lithography	45 nm	65 nm
Die size	107 mm²	143 mm²
Maximum core temperature	105 °C	100 °C
Number of transistors	410 Million	291 Million
64 bit support	+	+
Windows 11 compatibility	-	-

Compatibility

Information on Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Celeron M 560 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Socket	P (478)	PPGA478
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	30 Watt

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 0.43
+26.5%

Celeron M 560 0.34

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 687
+28.4%

Celeron M 560 535

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 1797

Celeron M 560 2008
+11.7%

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 3329
+65.8%

Celeron M 560 2008

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.43	0.34
Recency	1 May 2009	1 May 2008
Physical cores	2	1
Threads	2	1
Chip lithography	45 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	30 Watt

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 has a 26.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.

Celeron M 560, on the other hand, has 16.7% lower power consumption.

The Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 560 in performance tests.

Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Celeron M 560, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.